Re: Who Does Al Qaeda Want In The White House?

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 09:30:14 -0700, SMITH29 <smith29@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:

>Don Homuth wrote:
>> If it's a fact that we Ought to go to some sort of "war" with al
>> Qaeda, then why did we attack Iraq?
>xxxx
>I have explained that about 10 times already in usenet and I'm not going 
>to do it again.

Aw gee -- still no better explanation than before?

>You best call someone in government and get the answer you want.

Nah -- I just need to review all those Awful Things about Iraq that we
just knew were fact - the WMDs, the Terrist connection, the mobile CW
trucks, the nuclear weapons program, the uranium buy from Africa.

Those were what this administration said were the reasons to go to war
primarily.

Secondarily, they wanted to Spread Democracy, reconstruct Iraq using
Iraqi awl money, settle the Middle East down -- things like that.

No need to Call anyone.  The "answers" were given Before we attacked.

>> When we attacked Iraq, there was no al Qaeda in it.
>xxxx
>Nobody knows that to be a fact.

Yeah -- actually we do.  The closest that any faction in Iraq prior to
the attack was to al Qaeda was an entity in the NE mountains that
Saddam attacked on a regular basis.  It was known as Ansar al-Islam,
and was a Kurdish faction.

You weren't aware of that?

>   There was no
>> Known connection between the two.  Iraq had nothing that could help al
>> Qaeda.
>xxxx
>Whether they were there or not isn't the least bit im****tant.

Well...

* We said they were there.

* We said they were a Terrist threat.

* We said that Iraq was working with al Qaeda.

* We said that was how we just Knew that Iraq was a Terrist Threat.

Only one Teensy problem:  It wasn't.

That "intel" -- all of it, was Dead Wrong.